The Court held that the defendant held the Property subject to a right of residence but was obliged to hold the remainder interest for the plaintiffs, to be gifted to them under her Will, based on an oral agreement made with the deceased at the time of purchase that in consideration for being placed on title as joint tenant she would leave the Property to his sons. The Court found on the evidence — including the defendant's own cross-examination admissions — that there was an agreement prior to the purchase that the Property would go into joint names on the basis the defendant would leave it to the plaintiffs in her Will, effectively qualifying the defendant's interest acquired through survivorship. The family provision claims of both Christopher and the defendant were declined, with the Court noting that claimants who provide little or no outline of their claim for provision and no evidentiary base to support it risk dismissal.
The full text is available to signed-in members.